Judgment Jamuar, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated the 28th August, 1950, passed by the Additional Election Commissioner, Darbhanga, declaring the election of Babu Chandrasekhar Prasad Sinha to the District Board of Darbhanga void. 2. In May-June 1919, there was held an election from the Mohaddinagar Thana Constituency to the District Board of Darbhanga. Indraded Prasad Mahton, Chandrasekhar Prasad Sinha and Ram Ahrad Thakur were candidates from that constituency. Indradeo Prasad Mahto was a Congress nominee, whereas the other two were independent candidates. The polling began on the 30th May, 1949, and ended on the 2nd June 1949. The results were announced on the 7th June, 1949 when the Returning Officer declared Chandrasekhar Prasad Sinha as having been duly ejected, he having obtained the largest number of votes. The result was published in the Bihar Gazette dated the 20th July, 1949. 3. Subsequent to that Indradeo Prasad Mahton filed an election petition for a declaration that the election of Chandrasekhar Prasad Sinha was void on the ground that he, his agents, friends, relations, sympathisers and supporters at his instance and instigation and with his consent or connivance had created a reign of terror by committing murders and by indiscriminately assaulting voters and passers-by, so as to create an atmosphere of general intimidation, and had prevented the voters from exercising their legitimate rights of franchise. It was asserted that in these circumstances, not only were the results at the poll affected but that the entire election was vitiated, and should be declared void. 4. Chandrasekhar Prasad Sinha only contested the petition on denying all the allegations made therein. He also took the plea that the petition, which was filed, was not maintainable and was time-barred. 5. I have already said that the learned Additional Election Commissioner, who heard the petition, allowed it and gave the declaration sought in the petition, and it is against that decision that the present application has been filed. 6. Certain rules have been framed called the Bihar District Board Election Petition Rules, 1939-in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Governor of Bihar by Sec.138(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Local Self-Government Act 1385. These rules have been published in the Bihar Gazette dated July, 12, 1939, in Notification No. 3481-L. S. G. dated the 8th July, 1939. 7. Mr. These rules have been published in the Bihar Gazette dated July, 12, 1939, in Notification No. 3481-L. S. G. dated the 8th July, 1939. 7. Mr. Harinandan Singh, who appeared for the petitioner, firstly contended that the election petition filed in the case was not maintainable under these rules, and should have been summarily dismissed. In order to deal with this point it is necessary to examine some of the rules; "3. No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules. 7(1)An ejection petition against a returned candidate shall be presented to the Election Commissioner within 14 clays from the date of the publication in the Bihar Gazette of the name of such candidate under Section 9 of the Act. 7. (1) An election petition shall contain a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall, where necessary be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively. It shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner prescribed for the verification of pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (2)(a) The petition shall be accompanied by a list, signed and verified in like manner, setting forth full particulars of any corrupt practice which the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible as to the names of the parties alleged to have committed any corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. (b) The junction Commissioner may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as he may direct, at any time allow the particulars included in the said list to be amended, or order such further and better particulars in regard to any matter referred to therein to be furnished as may in his opinion be necessary for the purpose of ensuring a fair and effectual trial of the petition. Provided that the Election Commissioner shall not by means by any such amendment allow particulars to be furnished of any corrupt practice other than a corrupt practice set forth in the list furnished by the petitioner under clause (a) of Sub-rule (2). "10. (1) If there is any failure to comply with any of the provisions of Rule 5, Sub-rule (1) and Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, and Rules 8 and 9, the Election Commissioner shall summarily dismiss the petition." 8. "10. (1) If there is any failure to comply with any of the provisions of Rule 5, Sub-rule (1) and Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, and Rules 8 and 9, the Election Commissioner shall summarily dismiss the petition." 8. The facts upon which the argument that the election petition prescribed in the present case was not maintainable are these. As I have stated above, the result of the election was published in the Bihar Gazette on the 20th July, 1949. The election petition was presented on the 1st August, 1949. The list of corrupt practices was filed on the 2nd August, 1949, but this list had not been verified as required by Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) or Rule 7, quoted above. But the Court, by its own motion ordered the list to be verified, and this was done on the 10th August, 1949. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that according to Rule 3, no election could be called in question unless the election petition presented was in accordance with the rules. Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 provides that the election petition must be accompanied by a list signed and verified in like manner as the election petition itself which has to be verified in the manner prescribed for the verification of pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure. No doubt, the election petition as also the list of corrupt practices, which was filed on the next day, had been filed within the period prescribed by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5; but the verification of the list was not made within the period prescribed by Sub-rule (i) of Rule 5. It was, therefore, argued that since the election petition was not filed within the prescribed period accompanied by a properly verified list of corrupt practices, the petition cannot be said to have been presented "in accordance with these rules", and hence the election, as provided by Rules 3 could not be called in question. Clearly, the argument has force. 9. The reply, however was two-fold. First it was contended that the election petition itself contained the material particulars regarding the corrupt practices alleged, and therefore, it was unnecessary to file any further list of corrupt practices. Since such an election petition had been filed within the prescribed period, it was argued, it was superfluous to file a further list. 9. The reply, however was two-fold. First it was contended that the election petition itself contained the material particulars regarding the corrupt practices alleged, and therefore, it was unnecessary to file any further list of corrupt practices. Since such an election petition had been filed within the prescribed period, it was argued, it was superfluous to file a further list. Hence, we were asked to ignore the unverified list filed on the next day. The contention was that in these circumstances, the election petition must be held to have been presented in accordance with the rules I do not think I can accept this argument. Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 provides that the election petition "Shall be accompanied by a list, signed and verified in like manner, setting forth full particulars of any corrupt practice which the petitioner alleges." Since this clause enjoins the filing of a separate list, I do not think that even if the election petition contains certain particulars of corrupt practices, the rule regarding the filing of a list with the petition can be disregarded. 10. The other line of argument in reply was with reference to Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 which empowers the election Commissioner to allow the particulars in the list "to be amended". The contention was that Clause (b) gives wide powers to the election Commissioner so that even if he gave time for verification of the list beyond the prescribed period, he was within his rights so to do. Clause (b) in my opinion, provides for the amendment of the particulars already included in the list or for the inclusion of further and better particulars in regard to any matter already referred to in the list. I do not think that this gives power to the election Commissioner to allow the curing of defects and as want of verification of the list. The argument was sought to be supported from the provisions of the Civil P. C. regarding amendment of plaints, it was contended that the omission to verify a plaint is a mere irregularity which could be cured at a later stage, and that such a plaint could not be rejected in limine. The argument was sought to be supported from the provisions of the Civil P. C. regarding amendment of plaints, it was contended that the omission to verify a plaint is a mere irregularity which could be cured at a later stage, and that such a plaint could not be rejected in limine. There is in my view, a clear distinction between the procedure provided in the Civil P. C. for the admission of plaints and the procedure provided by the District Board Election Petitions Rules, 1939, for the admission of election petitions. Whereas there is no provision on the Civil P. C. for the rejection of plaints in limine for want of verification and the like, there is a definite provision in the Election petitions Rules for the rejection of an election petition, if it is not presented in accordance with the rules, as is apparent from Rule 3. quoted above. In that connection, reference must also be made to Sub-rule (1} of Rule 10 which has also been quoted above. " In accordance with this Sub-rule, failure to comply with Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 will entitle the Election Commissioner to dismiss the petition summarily. 11. In these circumstances, in my view, the election petition not having been presented in accordance with the District Beard Election Petitions Rules 1939, was not maintainable. The petition should have been summarily dismissed as the Election Commissioner had no jurisdiction to investigate and hear the matter further. His order, therefore, is clearly revisable by this Court. 12. The second argument in support of the petition was that the election was not liable to be declared void or to be set aside, as the corrupt practice alleged had not been proved. A corrupt practice has been defined in Rule 2, Clause (d) as meaning "any of the practices specified in Parts I and II of the Schedule to these rules" Mr. Chatterji, who appeared for the opposite party and who argued in support of the order conceded that he could only rely upon the allegation of undue influence" as explained in Part I of the Schedule. Chatterji, who appeared for the opposite party and who argued in support of the order conceded that he could only rely upon the allegation of undue influence" as explained in Part I of the Schedule. Part I of the Schedule contains the various kinds of corrupt practices, and one of them is undue influence, and it is explained as follows: "Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of a candidate or his agent or of any other person with the connivance of the candidate or his agent with the free exercise of any electoral right." Shortly, the undue influence must be on the part of a candidate or his agent or of any other person with the connivance of the candidate or his agent. There is no allegation of any undue influence on the part of the candidate or his agent, and it was so conceded in the Court below. There is one passage in the judgment of the Court below to the effect that certain criminal acts were committed by the agents, as the Court below has stated; "As the murders and assault had concern with the election and as they were not committed for or on behalf of the petitioner the irresistible conclusion is that they were committed for and on behalf of the contesting respondent by his men, agents sympathisers or in any case by those who were interested in him and I hold accordingly." It was said that this is a finding regarding agents also; but there is no specific allegation either in the petition or in the list of corrupt practices that there was any such act on the part of the agents. "Undue influence" can only be a "corrupt practice" if there is proved to be any direct or indirect interference or attempt to intefere on the part of (1) a candidate, or (2) his agent, or (3) of any other persons with the connivance of the candidate or his agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right. No evidence has been shown to us of any such act on the part of (1) the candidate, or (2) his agent. The finding is that it was on the part of the sympathisers and men who were interested in the candidate. No evidence has been shown to us of any such act on the part of (1) the candidate, or (2) his agent. The finding is that it was on the part of the sympathisers and men who were interested in the candidate. But that can only be if that is done "with the connivance of the candidate or his agent". There is no finding that it was with the connivance of the candidate or his agent. That being so, in my opinion even the corrupt practice alleged cannot be said to have been proved. 13 I would accordingly allow this application and set aside the order of the Additional Election Commissioner. The petitioner is entitled to his casts; hearing fee two gold mohurs. Rai, J. 14 I agree.